In Your Opinion, Is Thaksin Guilty Of Terrorism?

[Jingthing]

Whoever is the winning leader in any war is a brave honest freedom fighter.

Whoever is the losing leader in a war is a cowardly criminal and terrorist.

I think it is a little bit too early to decide who is which in Thailand just yet .............

(and jumping to the wrong decision prematurely may get you permanently excluded from the country in question)

That is simply NOT TRUE. There is an objective reality in the eyes of history.

Examples, Idi Amin, Pol Pot, etc.

There is no doubt in my mind, between Thaksin and Abhisit, which man will be portrayed as the villain in the perspective of history. Whether Thaksin prevails, or not.

Edited May 27, 2010 by Jingthing

[toptuan]

I'd need to see the evidence the govt. has before determining whether or not someone is guilty of such a serious crime.

That issue is covered in the OP. If you don't have an opinion yet, vote no opinion. This is only about people's OPINIONS. Not the same thing as legal proof and never will be. Cheers.

If nothing else, I reckon Thaksin's lawyer Robert Amsterdam may be curious about the general direction of public opinion about his client.

i have a couple of questions for discussion about Robert Amsterdam

Lawyering in Thailand is a protected profession, so he has no jurisdiction or valid qualifications here.

if he claims he is a lawyer working for Thaksin, a Thai citizen, when he is in Thailand:

is that breaking employment law?

also he admits he did visit the rally site and talk with the protest leaders whilst in Thaksins employ

presumably he was not doing it for free

isn't that working and in breach of any visa he may hold?

also if he was representing Thaksin at the rally site, then is he supporting terrorism and criminal activity on behalf of his client

does that make him guilty of conspiracy ?

If a Prime Minister could be deposed on a technicality (e.g. having a TV cooking show), I suppose they could easily defrock/debunk/deport etc. a lawyer who worked without a WP!

[Forkinhades]

Seems this thread is going to be Red shirts v The rest of TV (World) Obvious outcome really.

[toptuan]

Whoever is the winning leader in any war is a brave honest freedom fighter.

Whoever is the losing leader in a war is a cowardly criminal and terrorist.

I think it is a little bit too early to decide who is which in Thailand just yet .............

(and jumping to the wrong decision prematurely may get you permanently excluded from the country in question)

Agreed. It's too early to tell in the court of world opinion or international justice who will be the bad/good guys. The emotion-packed charge of terrorism is simply a thinly veiled attempt to pull world opinion to the current government's side in this mud slinging match.

Meanwhile it's so obvious the government is doing what any junta-backed government would do at this stage--create a diversion by demonizing one person who might represent the whole movement in the public eye. The more spectacular the charges ("terrorism" sounds so much worse than "sedition" or "incitement") the more they can whip up public sentiment and help divert the masses' focus from Thailand's real, deeper problems.

You've heard this before: If they can successfully accomplish this diversion, perhaps they can hold on at least until the next election. Of course, those election results will have to be thrown out (technicality, coup, PAD-type protests, etc.), the elite put back in power, by hook or by crook (usually the latter), and the whole hideous, vicious cycle will be back in motion again to haunt the peace and political stability of this country.

This ugly cycle has been going on for at least 100 years. See interesting article about a red-shirt rebellion stemming from Thailand's northeast over 100 years ago. Until Bangkok's elite are willing to live in a real democracy, it will always remain a "fledgling democracy" with these consequential upheavals.

So sad. So seemingly hopeless.

Edited May 27, 2010 by toptuan

[rixalex]

If a Prime Minister could be deposed on a technicality (e.g. having a TV cooking show), I suppose they could easily defrock/debunk/deport etc. a lawyer who worked without a WP!

A technicality?

Let me ask you this. Do you think it not reasonable to expect a PM for the short period of time he/she has the honour of leading a nation to dedicate themselves to the post without the distraction of having a job / jobs on the side?

To me, the idea of the Prime Minister taking on part-time work is completely ludicrous and the red shirts defence of this action on the basis that "it was only a cooking show" completely misses the point.

Another point that is missed / overlooked is that the PM lied in court. Do you not feel that any PM who does that deserves to be made to stand down?

And a final point, that too is ignored, is that in actual fact it wasn't either working on the side or lying in court that led to Samak's downfall, it was Thaksin deciding he would prefer his brother-in-law at the helm that did it.

[thaihome]

Perhaps the wording of the poll was a bit strong. As we have not seen the evidence it is hard to say he is guilty. I assume the evidence is transcripts of phone calls (provided by the US) showing that it was premediated as well as financial transactions that show he funded the rally and more importantly, the security section that probably did the actual acts.

TH

[toptuan]

If a Prime Minister could be deposed on a technicality (e.g. having a TV cooking show), I suppose they could easily defrock/debunk/deport etc. a lawyer who worked without a WP!

A technicality?

Let me ask you this. Do you think it not reasonable to expect a PM for the short period of time he/she has the honour of leading a nation to dedicate themselves to the post without the distraction of having a job / jobs on the side?

To me, the idea of the Prime Minister taking on part-time work is completely ludicrous....

Oh yeah, I forgot that the high public service ethic here keeps the vast majority of Thailand's public servants from ever doing something as unbelievable as moonlighting while in office. You will recall that the Prime Minister in question used the show to voice his political views much like Roosevelt's and Kennedy's "fireside chats." I don't think he needed the money.

The opposition's argument to throw him out? You bought it: hook, line and sinker!

Edited May 27, 2010 by toptuan

[blackman]

Anyone voting yes needs to go look up what terrorism means in a dictionary, or google it.

From UN definition of terrorism

"In November 2004, a United Nations Secretary General report described terrorism as any act "intended to cause death or serious bodily harm to civilians or non-combatants with the purpose of intimidating a population or compelling a government or an international organization to do or abstain from doing any act". "

By this definition the Issan Army that occupied central Bangkok are terrorists.

[rixalex]

A technicality?

Let me ask you this. Do you think it not reasonable to expect a PM for the short period of time he/she has the honour of leading a nation to dedicate themselves to the post without the distraction of having a job / jobs on the side?

To me, the idea of the Prime Minister taking on part-time work is completely ludicrous....

Oh yeah, I forgot that the high public service ethic here keeps the vast majority of Thailand's public servants from ever dong something as unbelievable as moonlighting while in office.

Yup you bought it: hook, line and sinker!

I haven't bought anything hook, line and sinker, just as i'm not buying your feeble "others do it so when someone actually gets made to follow the law, rather than celebrate it let's ridicule it and moan about how terribly unfair it is" line.

[thaicbr]

And if you give to support people on a peaceful demonstration......and later a faction turns violent.....

How then are you a terrorist?

In theory you can leave. However there have been stories on the various news media that people were prevented from leaving / their ID cards were taken etc.

In a nutshell, IMHO:

- Many red shirt leaders are terrorists

- Many red shirt followers are not terrorists

- Thaksin is a terrorist (certainly terrorist financer)

I believe the 'nutshell' is correct. I would add that many red shirts (especially those attending Bkk) have been brain washed. So things may change slightly when some come to their senses

[Scott]

To the best of my knowledge, political threads aren't allowed in the general forum.

//Closed//